of terrorism, because the systematic practice of the Police consisted in taking the statements of the detainees after they had been detained for several days, during which time it was virtually impossible for the lawyers to meet with their clients.” Moreover, the CVR concluded that the meetings between the detainees and their lawyers “were normally supervised and overheard by police agents.” 312 204. In this regard, J.’s mother and Emma Vigueras indicated that Ms. J. was kept in total incommunicado, that only one lawyer had been able to see her but without being able to talk to her in private. 313 Emma Vigueras also indicated that “in this context of ‘incommunicado,’ the only opportunity she had, as a lawyer, […] to talk to her clients was when the detainees made their statement to the police; in other words, in the presence of the prosecutor and of the police who questioned the detainee officially. The lawyers were not allowed to have private conversations with those they were defending.” 314 Similarly, she indicated that, between May and September 1992, during the preliminary investigation stage of the proceedings, “the lawyers were prevented from having any contact with their clients who were in complete incommunicado,” and as of October 1992, “when access to [their] clients was established to some extent […], this was extremely restricted and in degrading conditions. The timing was limited and the visit took place in a small room, […] with no privacy.” 315 205. The Court underlines that a literal reading of Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention reveals that “everyone had the right to communicate freely and privately with his defense counsel.” Moreover, the Court has emphasized that it is not sufficient that the accused has a defense counsel to guarantee his right to defend himself, but the effective exercise of this defense must be ensured by providing adequate time and means for its preparation. 316 206. In the instant case, the Court finds that it has been proved that Ms. J. was unable to meet with her lawyer in private, and that when she met her, this was under the strict supervision of the State authorities. Peru has failed to justify to this Court that “the confidential nature of the proceedings” constituted a valid restriction of these rights. Although the State must ensure the success of the investigations and the punishment of those found guilty to the greatest extent possible, the power of the State is not unlimited, so that it must act within the limits and in accordance with procedures that permit preserving both public safety and the fundamental rights of the individual. 317 Consequently, if a State finds it necessary to restrict the right to defend oneself, it must do so in keeping with the principle of legality, present the legitimate objective that it seeks to achieve, and prove that the means used to this end is suitable, necessary and strictly proportionate. To the contrary, the restriction will be contrary to the Convention. 318 207. In the instant case, the State has not argued that the restrictions to Ms. J.’s right to defend herself during the first stage of the proceedings against her were established by law. In addition, 312 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume VI, chapter 1.6, pp. 398 and 421. 313 Cf. Affidavit prepared by J.’s mother on June 13, 2006, for the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 1, folio 3000), and Sworn statement made by Emma Vigueras on May 15, 2000 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 2, folio 3009). 314 Sworn statement made by Emma Vigueras on May 15, 2000 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 2, folio 3009). 315 Sworn statement made by Emma Vigueras on May 15, 2000 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 2, folio 3011). 316 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 170, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 156. 317 para. 53. 318 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 154, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 55. 62